Jarvis v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis
500 F.3d 1113 · 2007
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 701 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 705 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12113 (§ 103 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12116 (§ 106 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (§ 302 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Bragdon v. Abbott · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Commercial Office Products Co. · Morgan v. Hilti, Inc. · Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The determination that a direct threat exists must have been based on a specific personal assessment of Mr. Sungaila’s ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. This assessment of Mr. Sungaila’s ability must have been based on either a reasonable medical judgment that relied on medical knowledge [or best objective evidence] available at the time of assessment.... An employer’s subjective belief that a direct threat exists, even if maintained in good faith, is not sufficient unless it is objectively reasonable. In determining whether Beverage Distributors acted objectively reasonably when it determined that Mr. Sungaila was a direct threat, you must consider the following factors: (a) the duration of the risk; (b) the nature and severity of the potential harm; (c) the likelihood that the potential harm would occur; and (d) the imminence of the potential harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We recognize that Bragdon was not an employment case.... But the Court explicitly pointed out that the ADA contains parallel language in its employment provisions and we see no reason not to apply Bragdon 's analysis to employment cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nall v. BNSF Ry. Co.“opposed any act or practice made unlawful by [the statute] or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [the statute],”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McIver v. Mattis
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.